Kedar was not impressed. ‘So? I can do that too. I heal myself all the time.’

Swar the robot looked politely confused.

‘And how?’ asked Annie.

‘Well… I may not be able to heal that fast, but I do it all the time. Even you do it. Everyone does. When I scrape my knee, bruise my elbow, when I get an ulcer in the mouth… I kindasorta repair myself.’

My brother and I love Ancient Aliens. We derive that same strange joy out of watching the show that we do from watching movies like Housefull and Singham with like-minded company.

While I do believe aliens exist, I do not like the narrow or no definition of ‘alien’ the show seems to suggest. They never really specify who or what they imply by the term. Sometimes, the aliens are angels. Sometimes, the Hindu gods are aliens. Sometimes, some of the prophets are aliens. Though I do not recall seeing it in an episode, I am sure some of our long-gone creatures must have been branded aliens too, or perhaps their going-away had something to do with aliens.

Always, the show talks of these entities from somewhere away from the three-dimensional earth, that have come to our planet, who the ancient people often mistook as Gods or their agents. Or these entities helped us build the pyramids and the Angkor Wat. The explanation of all historic mysteries is ‘aliens.’ They might as well be saying ‘because we don’t know the explanation, it must be the aliens,’ like this meme so aptly illustrates. I feel they equate ‘can’t be explained with all the known science and facts’ with ‘aliens.’

It is difficult to explain the unknown with the little-known, specially when ‘known’ isn’t as quantifiable as it parades itself.

An occasional episode here and there does provide food for thought, and one such idea had to do with Leonardo da Vinci, the famous Renaissance painter whose work is so familiar with all.

Imagine my excitement, when the opening segment of the show suggested that his paintings contained aliens and UFOs. Load of stuff to do with him being a messenger of aliens and it was they who inspired him to sketch out all those inventions we today take for granted. In the commercial break, I tried hard to remember whether I ever noticed these aliens before. Except that the Mona Lisa has a kind of odd face and that famous enigmatic smile, I couldn’t think of any other. Then just when I was about to place that episode into Rohit Shetty category, the second segment began. That is where they started mirror-imaging those paintings and then superimposing these mirror-images. Before my eyes, the screen was showing how Virgin of the Rocks became an archetypal alien. Then there was The Madonna with Saint Giovannino, and no way could the Unidentified Flying Object in it be hastily dismissed as a cloud or the moon (a moon isn’t ever a grey hexagon with yellow streaks emerging from it, is it?).

To summarize, about half a dozen paintings of the master could be superimposed on their own mirror-images to form what were obviously portraits of, well, aliens; and some paintings depicted UFOs without even having the need to mirror-image them or anything.

After my brain was bamboozled completely, I realized that I could see this for myself. Yes, I had that much time and curiosity. But to be fair, in the spirit of science and statistics, I also decided to do the mirror-bit with another Renaissance painter’s works, just to see whether the appearance of aliens had something to do with the style and approach towards painting back then. And also to see if every well-composed painting would result in a symmetry that bears likeness to a human-face that could be mistaken for… you guessed it right, an alien.

I am not sure whether I did exactly what the show did, but here are some of the edits anyway:

Virgin of the Rocks

Lady with an Ermine

The Madonna of the YarnwinderA detail from The Annunciation

Here are two of Raphael’s:The Nymph GalateaDetail from The School of Athens

I can’t say whether there are any aliens in the last two, because I have never come across (in popular culture) any looking like the things in above.

To summarize, my photo-editing adventure resulted aliens in four out of the eight Vinci paintings I tested, and zero out of four for Raphael. Visual reference point for aliens was based on how ‘obvious’ the symmetry looked like alien-forms, rather than one having to struggle to see them. This brings us back to the point I earlier mentioned regarding the unknown and the known.

Each layer of Saatvik’s disintegrating canvas exposed an older trend. For a decade he had waited, letting it get ready, poster by poster, outside the city’s most reputable art gallery.

And now he greedily worked away; revealing hidden strokes, forgotten colours, disputed originals and debated interpretations. Long, knobbly, rubied fingers removed strips and patches with dexterous care, painting without paints, keeping a remnant of one show, removing a chunk of another.

He did not answer the curious public, not even those who seemed genuine lovers of art. ‘It may bias what is in my head, the struggle for explanation,’ he said through confident rips of paper.

That night, an opportunistic media-man posted a snapshot of the unfinished piece on the web. By morning, the art world had debated itself out on what it conveyed. And so the decade-long wait to create his masterpiece was wasted, when Saatvik hadn’t even unveiled half of what he thought his brilliant mind held. But minds change fast, in the post-modern world.

‘A snapshot of our city’s art history, through the last decade, layer by layer,’ he told the media-man and got away with it, having been famous for decades himself. No one accused him of pulling a Duchamp.

While the original was carefully removed from the wall and auctioned off for a grand sum, the excited curator documented the masterpiece on a beautiful print. Outside the now even more famous gallery, it stayed for a week before the artist for the next exhibit put up his shiny poster on top.

A decade later, Saatvik worked at another try, after being cited as an old fraud by some; by others, a much debated, misunderstood artist. Long, knobbly, dirt-lined fingers removed strips and patches with dexterous care, painting without paints, keeping a remnant of one show, removing a chunk of another. This time, he wouldn’t let it get clicked, nor would he expose the bottom-most layer of his new canvas.

I think I met Melchizedek right outside the Nagpur airport one morning, after a short trip home this July. He was dressed like one of the security guards- in khaki, hiding boredom just like the guards did behind a strict, no-nonsense expression and ample moustache.

I handed him my ticket printout and the driving licence. He peered at it, then at me. At it. At me. At it. At me.

‘I know. That’s more than five years old. I looked different. The pic’s mine.’

I always over-explain, yes, often before the need arises to.

‘You have a lovely name.’ His eyes didn’t leave the driving licence.

What a creep.

I gave a half-smile that hardly thanked him, and pretended to observe a bawling baby on a cart in the parallel queue.

‘Do you know what it means, Vaidehi?’

I provided the automatic answer. ‘It’s one of the names of Goddess Sita. Derived from Videha. Her father.’

He smiled, handing me back the licence. At this point I noticed his eyes- brown, shiny and deep. To my shock-surprise, he patted my head. ‘That it is. But what does it mean?’ His gaze was penetrating and held a hint of mischief.

I knew the meaning but thought he would not understand it even if I told him. Prejudice born from growing up in an environment where engineers are considered more brainy than designers.

He spoke. ‘It means one who has risen above and beyond the body and self. Vi-deha. Vi = beyond. Deha = body. Transcending beyond the body. Remember that.’ I must have looked really dumb with my mouth open, because my hair was promptly tousled and I was asked with a smile to move into the lobby beyond.

The past few weeks had been bad in a number of ways. I was cribbing a great deal about the unfairness dealt out to me by fate. Most importantly, I had not asked for help, to myself or others. The daily meditation was not being practiced when I needed it most.

I must have attracted this reminder. Unlike Santiago in The Alchemist, I wasn’t handed any decision-making stones, but the reminder was good enough. The first thing I did on boarding the flight was meditate. The rest would follow.

Guru, a friend, sent me a list of books recently which were high on ‘SQ’ and thought that the same should be ‘sublimated.’ Some of them were Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics (1976), Kahlil Gibran’s The Prophet (1923), W Somerset Maugham’s The Razor’s Edge (1944), James Redfield’s The Celestine Prophecy (1994) and Paramahansa Yogananda’s Autobiography of a Yogi (1974). Not knowing what ‘SQ’ meant and what he implied by ‘sublimated,’ I asked him. Below are two of Guru’s replies from our exchange of emails, what he has written is truly food for thought:

Hi Vai

Sorry for late reply just came back from Hyderabad.

Hmmm,

SQ refers to Spiritual Quotient. It is proven that SQ matters most compared to Emotional Quotient (EQ) , Creative Quotient (CQ) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ). IQ occupies the bottomline of this quotient pyramid.

These are the books , that really transforms a person, that’s why I referred to sublimation from form to formless thinking (metaphor: camphor). From information to knowledge to wisdom to truth.

My thoughts w.r.t to these books:

There are certain attributes linked with being Spiritual or involved in Spiritual thinking and it is totally independent of any religion. I am just exploring what are these attributed involved with Spiritual Thinking or being Spiritual. Some of the attributes are Empathy, Reflective meditation, search for System Harmony, attachment and detachment at will, cosmic connection. The list is vast and the search is still on.

There are many question that are arising:

1. Is the human race evolving from primal reactive animal instinct to responding human instinct to a more harmonious reflective system species OR it is just a cycle going back to basic animal instinct.

I feel both reactive animal instinct and harmonious system species are good that respects nature’s law. It is only the intermediate stage which is causing all the chaos.

I think as designers it will be of help in understanding the whole , if we know the what phase of evolving stage we are in.

Most of the ads in Europe target the animal instinct part of humans that which can create the craving and hence leading to purchasing at any cost. India too is following the trend. This might not create a healthy economy.

The products and communication has to be designed for a Healthy Economy….

ok.. just wrote as per the flow of my thoughts and it went somewhere 🙂

I think you have read the book the man who moved Mt Fuji. It is also a good one. Your mail just triggered my thoughts
Will reflect more and organize my thoughts

Cheers! Have a good Day 🙂
Guru

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Maati 🙂

There was a great lady Hazel Handerson who died in recent years who spoke about “Love Economy”. It talks about the bottomline of any transaction should be based on love for business to survive in current scenarios. But this is also one element of the Healthy economy that I was referring to.

The system gets changed and new perspective emerges and hence all the activities including design associated with that changes, the moment we see the interconnected harmony existing within the ecosystem. This is what the Avatar movies spells out. But the movie has not captured many other aspects probably due to some constraints.

“The maximization” approach followed by the present day driving industries is leading towards many emerging problems right from rich-poor disparity, merciless crimes, unknown new diseases, sense of insecurity and loneliness, sense of dissatisfaction even after amassing huge wealth, business-oriented but not human values-oriented education, intelligence and merits are measured based on amount of exploitation one can do, shallow weak bonds and networking done only for a selfish interests, plastic and materialistic economy etc which does not bother for future generations and which does not bother to give something back. If just the perspective changes from “maximization” to “Harmonization” then with no span of time all the breath-choking problems will melts into a fresh air, leading to an energetic living. The exploitation becomes empathizing, intelligence measurement becomes spiritual measurement, weak bonding becomes inseparable souls, pain becomes peace and bliss.

And Designers have to lead the revolution in changing this perspective through their DESIGNS. Rather than design for consumerism let us design for love, wellness, harmony and dedication.

Like this:

Save the planet? Planet must be saying, “Save yourself idiots, I will be fine”

-Paulo Coelho on twitter

How true. ‘Save the planet’ is a misguiding phrase. It’s usually understood by most as ‘save the planet as we know it.’ It’s either supreme arrogance or blinding ignorance to even attest ourselves with such importance to actually believe that we can ‘save a planet.’James Lovelock is probably right, our species are disease-causing microbes the earth is intending to wipe out soon to cure itself.

Like this:

When asked about their favourite colour, do most people think of their colour preference in clothing before answering? What other reasons can there be for one to call a particular colour their favourite? How can an individual’s nature be linked to their colour preference?

I usually state my favourite colour as greenish-blue.. mostly because it makes me think of plants, greenery, seas, nature and stuff. Most of my friends said they think of clothes before answering the question. Living space and accessories is a dominant factor too. A fellow graphic designer thinks of the eyedropper tool in photoshop/illustrator software every time he is asked. Some go by elimination, arrive on their favourite colour by not liking the others enough. Many say that their favourite colour is the one that ‘cheers’ them up.

A colleague said any soothing, tonal colours work well for him. I know this colleague is a peace-loving soul and somewhere I expected him not to say red, which he didn’t. Am I the one who is prejudiced regarding colour connotations or is he the one who’s unknowingly biased? Another reason given by people is ‘a colour that suits their personality’ is the one they like best. Some think a particular colour is ‘lucky’ for them, therefore favourite. Few people associate fav. colours with brands. Another common reason to choose colours is the emotion it signifies.

It is futile to ask graphic designers as almost all say black, white or both (ideally, we should be loving all colours equally :p). I guess profession is another factor.

One cannot think of colour in isolation, it has to be seen in a context (yellow sunshine, honey-coloured labrador retriever, red t-shirt, green plants, black hair, blue sea, brown chocolate, purple sweater, pink socks…). Different contexts at different points in time form the basis of one’s choice. But the fact remains that most people think of clothes.. 🙂

Like this:

The English word ‘path’ is similar to the word Hindi ‘path’ (like in Rajpath) and nearly means the same. Knowing the two languages are of the same family (Indo European family), it’s not surprising. Same goes for ‘dent’ (as in dental, dentistry..) which might be related to a similar Hindi word ‘danta’ [as in Dantamanjan (tooth powder)] both in pronounciation and meaning. Etymologies can be fascinating…